epa03426575 US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta (R) and British Defence Secretary Philip Hammond (L) during a NATO Defence Ministers council at the Alliance's headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, 09 October 2012. NATO defence ministers were gathering in Brussels for a meeting set to be overshadowed by worries over attacks by uniformed Afghans on foreign troops and tensions between Syria and NATO member Turkey. EPA/OLIVIER HOSLET Photo: EPA

BRUSSELS — NATO defense leaders gathering here Tuesday are committed to the war in Afghanistan, according to US and alliance officials, but there are growing signs that the Afghan political and military hostilities are starting to wear on the coalition.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other US officials heading into the meetings say they expect to reassure allies that military commanders are doing all they can to stem the tide of insider attacks, in which Afghan troops or insurgents dressed in their uniforms turn their guns on the coalition forces that are training them.

Compounding those military threats, however, is a recent spike in political tensions between Afghanistan’s government leaders and the US

Afghan President Hamid Karzai complained that the war effort is wrongheaded, and that coalition forces are not fighting the right enemy.

Just days ahead of the NATO meeting, Panetta was uncharacteristically sharp, criticizing Karzai for complaining rather than thanking the troops who have sacrificed their lives for his country. Karzai’s argument that NATO is wrongly going after the Taliban in Afghanistan when it should be fighting insurgents in Pakistan’s safe havens could further erode support for the war, particularly among members of Congress.

Panetta’s pique reflects the frustration of his military commanders, who have seen more than 2,000 US troops die in the 11-year war. And it can only fuel the increasingly strident grumbling by American lawmakers who are facing hotly contested elections next month, and are hearing from constituents wondering why the US is pouring billions of dollars into a fight that Afghanistan’s shaky and corruption-plagued government may no longer support.

Still, Panetta and allied leaders, including NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, insist that the war strategy is sound. They say the coalition will stick to the withdrawal schedule, which has combat forces leaving and Afghan forces taking over security of the country by the end of 2014.

During meetings Tuesday, Rasmussen said the ministers are expected to endorse a new framework for the Afghan war post 2014, shifting the focus of the coalition effort from combat to training. As a result, NATO is working on a new name for the mission — which to date has been the International Security Assistance Force. It would change in 2015 to the International Training, Advisory and Assistance Mission.

That mission would also likely include continued counterterrorism efforts by the US

The NATO members were also discussing the widening gap in defense spending between the US and the European allies, who have been cutting military budgets as part of their financial austerity measures. In the middle of the past decade, the US accounted for about 63 percent of total alliance spending, in contrast to 77 percent today.

Panetta told reporters traveling with him that the ministers will discuss the progress that has been made since they met for a summit in Chicago earlier this year.

“I’ll also reassure allies of our strong commitment to finishing the job in Afghanistan alongside our allies,” he said.

Defense ministers on Wednesday will also hear from Marine Gen. John Allen, the top US commander in Afghanistan, who will discuss measures the military has taken to reduce the insider attacks.

The attacks, which have killed more than 53 coalition troops this year, have imperiled the strategy by eating away at the trust between the allied forces and the Afghans they were sent there to mentor and train.

“My goal is to make clear to NATO and to our allies that we are taking all steps necessary to confront this issue and that it should not be allowed to deter us from the plan that Gen. Allen put in place,” said Panetta.

With support for the war ebbing across America and much of the world, there have been growing calls for a speedier withdrawal.

That prospect raises alarm among commanders who worry that they won’t have the forces they need to do the training and counterterrorism operations they believe necessary to continue the transition of security to the Afghan troops while also keeping the Taliban from resurging.

Responding to a question about Panetta’s criticism of Karzai’s complaints that troops should focus on Pakistan insurgents coming across the border rather than the Taliban in the country, a NATO official would say only that the alliance’s operations were limited to Afghanistan.

“Therefore NATO is not in a position to take action on militants on the other side of the border,” said the official, who could not be named in line with alliance rules.

“Obviously we’ve looked at (this issue), but it is not something that NATO can take the lead in,” he said. “It is always important to remember that for NATO, the limit of our operations is the borders of Afghanistan.”

The US has ramped up its unmanned drone campaign targeting insurgents that wage attacks then return to Pakistan safe havens, including the Haqqani network. But there are ongoing frustrations that Pakistan is not doing enough to tamp down the militants within its borders.